17 found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (forthcoming). No Offense! On the Offense Principle and Some New Challenges. Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-11.
    A central aim within criminal justice ethics is to give a plausible justification concerning which type of acts ought to be criminalized by the state. One of the principles of criminalization which has been presented and critically discussed in the philosophical literature is the Offense Principle. The primary aim of this paper is to argue that unless a rather special and implausible objective list theory of well-being is accepted, the Offense Principle should be subsumed in the Harm Principle.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (forthcoming). On the Offense Principle: Some New Challenges. Criminal Law and Philosophy.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2014). Being Worse Off: But in Comparison with What? On the Baseline Problem of Harm and the Harm Principle. Res Publica 20 (2):199-214.
    Several liberal philosophers and penal theorists have argued that the state has a reason to prohibit acts that harm individuals. But what is harm? According to one specification of harm, a person P is harmed by an act (or an event) a iff, as a result of a, P is made worse off in terms of well-being. One central question here involves the baseline against which we assess whether someone is ‘worse off’. In other words, when a person is harmed (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2014). (Neuro)Predictions, Dangerousness, and Retributivism. Journal of Ethics 18 (2):137-151.
    Through the criminal justice system so-called dangerous offenders are, besides the offence that they are being convicted of and sentenced to, also punished for acts that they have not done but that they are believe to be likely to commit in the future. The aim of this paper is to critically discuss whether some adherents of retributivism give a plausible rationale for punishing offenders more harshly if they, all else being equal, by means of predictions are believed to be more (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Søren Sofus Wichmann & Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2013). Poverty Relief: Philanthropy Versus Changing the System: A Critical Discussion of Some Objections to the 'Singer Solution'. Journal of Global Ethics 9 (1):1-9.
    The aim of this paper is to present and evaluate a specific critical discussion of Peter Singer's view on philanthropy. This critique of Singer's position takes several forms, and here we focus on only two of these. First of all, it is claimed that philanthropy (based upon the giving up of luxury goods) should be avoided, because it harms the poor. As we shall see this is a view defended by Andrew Kuper. However, philanthropy is also accused of harming the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Thomas Søbirk Petersen & Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (2012). Ethics, Organ Donation and Tax: A Proposal. Jounal of Medical Ethics 38 (8):451-457.
    Next SectionFive arguments are presented in favour of the proposal that people who opt in as organ donors should receive a tax break. These arguments appeal to welfare, autonomy, fairness, distributive justice and self-ownership, respectively. Eight worries about the proposal are considered in this paper. These objections focus upon no-effect and counter-productiveness, the Titmuss concern about social meaning, exploitation of the poor, commodification, inequality and unequal status, the notion that there are better alternatives, unacceptable expense, and concerns about the veto (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2011). What is Legal Moralism? SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 12 (1):80-88.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2010). Good Athlete - Bad Athlete? On the 'Role-Model Argument' for Banning Performance-Enhancing Drugs. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 4 (3):332-340.
    The paper critically discusses a role-model argument (RMA) in favour of banning performance-enhancing drugs in sport. The argument concludes that athletes should be banned from using performance-enhancing drugs because if they are allowed to use such drugs they will encourage, or cause, youngsters who look up to them to use drugs in a way that would be harmful. In Section 2 the structure of the argument and some versions of it are presented. In Section 3 a critical discussion of RMA (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2010). New Legal Moralism: Some Strengths and Challenges. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (2):215-232.
    The aim of this paper is to critically discuss the plausibility of legal moralism with an emphasis on some central and recent versions. First, this paper puts forward and defends the thesis that recently developed varieties of legal moralism promoted by Robert P. George, John Kekes and Michael Moore are more plausible than Lord Devlin's traditional account. The main argument for this thesis is that in its more modern versions legal moralism is immune to some of the forceful challenges made (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2010). What is a Good Sports Parent? Nordic Journal for Applied Ethics - Etikk I Praksis 4 (1):215-232.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2006). On the Repugnance of the Repugnant Conclusion. Theoria 72 (2):126-137.
    The aim of this paper is to discuss the plausibility of a certain position in the philosophical literature within which the Repugnant Conclusion is treated, not as repugnant, but as an acceptable implication of the total welfare principle. I will confine myself to focus primarily on Törbjörn Tännsjö’s presentation. First, I reconstruct Tännsjö’s view concerning the repugnance of the RC in two arguments. The first argument is criticized for (a) addressing the wrong comparison, (b) relying on the controversial claim that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2005). Tuomela, Raimo, The Philosophy of Social Practices – A Collective Acceptance View, Cambridge University Press, 2002, 274 Pp. + Xi. [REVIEW] SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 6 (1).
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2004). A Woman's Choice? On Women, Assisted Reproduction and Social Coercion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (1):81 - 90.
    This paper critically discusses an argument that is sometimes pressed into service in the ethical debate about the use of assisted reproduction. The argument runs roughly as follows: we should prevent women from using assisted reproduction techniques, because women who want to use the technology have been socially coerced into desiring children - and indeed have thereby been harmed by the patriarchal society in which they live. I call this the argument from coercion. Having clarified this argument, I conclude that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2003). Egalitarianism and Repugnant Conclusions. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 38:115-125.
    Most philosophers discuss the Repugnant Conclusion as an objection to total utilitarianism. But this focus on total utilitarianism seems to be one-sided. It conceals the important fact that other competing moral theories are also subject to the Repugnant Conclusion. The primary aim of this paper is to demonstrate that versions of egalitarianism are subject to the Repugnant Conclusion and other repugnant conclusions.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2002). The Claim From Adoption. Bioethics 16 (4):353–375.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (1999). Brave New Children. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 34:91-117.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (1999). Brave New Children-Assisted Reproduction and Our Concern for the Child. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 34:77-98.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation